re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA(Posted by Elcid96 on 11/29/12 at 2:48 pm to EthanL)

quote:It's not like Doctors will be ordering expensive MRI's on them as opposed to someone with insurance

BS, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Drs have to order the MRIs for these people if not they will be sued.

Drs don't have a choice, if one is required it has to be ordered and here is the catch. If a patient comes into a private hospital and needs care and then has to be seen by the Dr later at his private practice, the Dr has to pay for the MRI!

Go ask some trauma surgeons at a private hospital how that works. You would be shocked.

quote:Ask any ER doc who is more likely to sue them. Medicaid patient or patient with insurance?

This is why I absolutely hope that sometime down the line (which shouldn't be that far from now) there is a rule that comes out, that if you have any form of government healthcare, you can NOT sue anyone that gives you medical treatment.. ever, if the money was paid for by the guberment.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA(Posted by Elcid96 on 11/29/12 at 2:52 pm to BaddestAndvari)

quote:This is why I absolutely hope that sometime down the line (which shouldn't be that far from now) there is a rule that comes out, that if you have any form of government healthcare, you can NOT sue anyone that gives you medical treatment.. ever, if the money was paid for by the guberment.

I agree, but it will never happen.

The same people who are on here screaming healthcare is a "Right" have to take into account other "Rights". Can't have it both ways.

I agree they shouldn't be able to sue, but if you think lawyers are going to give up those "rights" you are crazy.

quote:This is why I absolutely hope that sometime down the line (which shouldn't be that far from now) there is a rule that comes out, that if you have any form of government healthcare, you can NOT sue anyone that gives you medical treatment.. ever, if the money was paid for by the guberment.

Guess what that will do for the quality of guberment-provided doctors?

No one in the thread seems to want to conceptualize how we may consider health care a right without conceptualizing the multiple, inefficient, massive government bureaucracies we already have in place.

EVERYONE seems to be assuming that since I am arguing that health care is a right, I support the ACA. I do NOT support the ACA, I think it is first, another massive, inefficient bureaucracy, and second, a surreptitious end run at a single-payer universal health care system.

that said, I am not against a single payer system necessarily, I just don't like the way we are going about restructuring our health care system.

It should start out with a blank slate and the question, "Is health care a right?" and go from there.

quote:Guess what that will do for the quality of guberment-provided doctors?

Good, I have 0 feelings otherwise for this, let them treat the patient with no $$$ at a lower cost to themselves, in order to recoop the money they are going to spend. I'm 100% ok with this situation, it is also the ultimate outcome of the system that has been put in place.

quote:It should start out with a blank slate and the question, "Is health care a right?" and go from there.

We agree on this! That's why we need to have the debate, and have it pass the hurdle of placing it into the Constitution.

But understand there is large difference here. Arguing we have a right to health care != we have a right to free healthcare.

The First Amendment ensure a right to free speech and press. It doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide you a printing press. Nor does the 2nd Amendment require the government provide you arms.

quote:Good, I have 0 feelings otherwise for this, let them treat the patient with no $$$ at a lower cost to themselves, in order to recoop the money they are going to spend.

Well... if you patients have no recourse... it will self-select the worst doctors who can operate and treat without fear of their own incompetence. I'm not sure that's a lot better than no doctor to be quite honest.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA(Posted by Womski on 11/29/12 at 3:05 pm to Taxing Authority)

Here's what I don't understand. How is it congress, the president, and the Supreme Court are not as smart as those of you saying it isn't a right? Even if you believe the tax theory, the genesis of the idea is to continue our progressive nature and provide a means of healthcare to all Americans.

Who says it isn't a right? A right is whatever we say it is. This is America. We make the rules.

re: History will be kind to Barack Obama, mainly because of PPACA(Posted by Puck82 on 11/29/12 at 3:09 pm to Taxing Authority)

When did "right to" become equal to "guaranteed to be provided by government?" We have the right to arms. Why isn't the government providing weapons to the general public. Just because you have the right to something does not mean it is provided and paid for by someone else.

quote:But understand there is large difference here. Arguing we have a right to health care != we have a right to free healthcare. The First Amendment ensure a right to free speech and press. It doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide you a printing press. Nor does the 2nd Amendment require the government provide you arms.

Oh, this is good stuff, right here.

We agree that nothing is free. So if you have a right to health care, and you have no money, do you still have that right?

Let's go to the courts ca 1975, Buckley v. Valeo...

This is commonly called the "Mony=speech" decision. Let's say money=speech, if that's the case, than more money = more speech and less money = less speech to the point where no money = no speech. Does everyone maintain their right to free speech in this case? If you have a right to something, but it costs more money than you have, is it still considered a right? You say yes, because as long as you can pay for it, you may speak freely.

[csb]I was reading an article recently that discussed a bill that was introduced in the New Hampshire that would tax NON-GUN OWNERS! The theory being that these people's security was enhanced by those gun owners around them. [/csb]

No, the 2nd Amendment doesn't require the government provide arms, BUT if you go back and read through the Constitutional Convention notes, you will find out what "Well Regulated" meant at the time as it pertained to a militia. It meant that arms would be standardized. You couldn't show up at muster with some odd-ball caliber rifle (pardon the pun). When the militia was called, you were to show up with a standard weapon, and retained the right to acquire such a weapon. I've always just assumed that if you showed up with no gun, one would be provided to you.

That said, when Uncle Sam drafts you ass, you ARE issued a GI weapon - and it WILL be "well regulated".

But I definitely see your point regarding a prohibition from being turned away from health care if you can afford it. That protects your right to health care to a great extent.